4.7 Review

Measuring wanting and liking from animals to humans: A systematic review

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 63, Issue -, Pages 124-142

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.01.006

Keywords

Incentive salience; Wanting; Liking; Affective relevance; Pleasure; Expected pleasantness

Funding

  1. National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) for the Affective Sciences
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [51NF40-104897, P2GEP1_162079]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P2GEP1_162079] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Animal research has shown it is possible to want a reward that is not liked once obtained. Although these findings have elicited interest, human experiments have produced contradictory results, raising doubts about the existence of separate wanting and liking influences in human reward processing. This discrepancy could be due to inconsistences in the operationalization of these concepts. We systematically reviewed the methodologies used to assess human wanting and/or liking and found that most studies operationalized these concepts in congruency with the animal literature. Nonetheless, numerous studies operationalized wanting in similar ways to those that operationalized liking. These contradictions might be driven by a major source of confound: expected pleasantness. Expected pleasantness underlies cognitive desires and does not correspond to animal liking, a hedonic experience, or to animal wanting, which relies on affective relevance, consisting of the perception of a cue associated with a relevant reward for the organism's current physiological state. Extending the concept of affective relevance and differentiating it from expected pleasantness might improve measures of human wanting and liking. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available